What's it all about?

Prof Dawkins should be pleased. Not only is my son's stuffed lemur named after him, but I deferred my enjoyment of the premiere America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12, for him.

It's wonderful go somewhere and come home feeling like you might be just a little bit smarter.

(That's not exactly what Top Model does for me.)

This is especially true when you don't get out much because you have a new-ish baby, and because you have a new-ish baby, you are still a little stupid in general.

This past week, I had the surprise opportunity to attend Richard Dawkins' lecture at the University of Minnesota, entitled "The Purpose of Purpose," As PZ Myers put it, "This talk presented an overview of how we should look at the appearance of design in the universe, for a general public."

The house was packed, which was a wonderful thing to see. Being an atheist in America can make you feel isolated, especially during the faux Great Awakening we have been suffering these past years, and when one is surrounded by data showing that America is only ahead of Turkey for public acceptance of evolution, and 63% of Americans believe that "humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being." Plus, as a bonus, "64% of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom."

What's a Science Fan to do?

The "Why Question" is one that humans always pose, and Prof. Dawkins suggests that the question of purpose is only sensible when one is considering a machine or an object, but it does not work when you attempt to apply it to something such as The Matterhorn. Purpose has been pondered for ages, and humans usually relate purpose back to themselves, such as the example Prof. Dawkins gave: it was once believed that cattle and sheep were given life in order to keep their meat fresh until we are ready to consume it. Yeah, why not? That meat would be bad in under a week if it were just hanging out in a field without the divine spark.

We laugh at such things now. But which of our divinations of purpose will be laughed at by coming generations?

People are still using objects to illustrate the genius of god's creation, even when that creation has been highly altered by humans, such as the famous case of the banana man (which should, of course, be a mystery novel). I see something like that, a man demonstrating how a banana is perfectly formed for the hand of man, while Kirk Cameron of TV's "Growing Pains" looks on, and am silenced with wide-eyed, open-mouthed wonder, eventually followed by the laughter of disbelief, but many, many people see that and nod in all-knowing understanding.

The questions after the lecture were generally rambling and disappointing. One of the questioners exhibited a common problem that believers have when they are confronted with atheists: they cannot comprehend life without a god, or "meaning" without a god. They think that because we don't have a god, we must have replaced him with something, like smoking for alcohol or French fries for smoking. They think that we must be attending the Church of Evolution with Pastor Darwin, everyone in the congregation donning matching white beards, and that we race about, reducing everything we see to its material parts, incapable of wonder and joy. That because we don't have a god, we have no reason to do good, no framework for morals. That because art or music appears to have no evolutionary purpose, it must therefore be useless, and we do not appreciate it. Even love must be alien to us, as we do not have, nor do we want, the love of a god.

But fear of divine judgment does not seem to be a good motivation for doing good. Nor does doing good to get god's attention and approval. Furthermore, it does not seem that More Religion in America has made us more caring, more responsible, more diplomatic, more accepting, or more healthy. In my ethical sensibility, Doing Good and behaving responsibly are societal issues as well as a personal ones: everyone benefits, including me. That sounds like a pretty good deal.

When it comes to a sense of wonder about the natural world, I think it's reductionist to say "god made it." For me, appreciation and a continuing sense of wonder come from a deeper understanding of how things work. Music and art, poetry and literature: these are all human achievements that are deserving of credit to their creator, not to a god or his 33 year old virgin son. It is a wonder that humans have come so far in such a comparatively short period of time and have invented not only progressively more complicated forms of technology for making our lives easier (go figure out that one), and that we have found beautiful ways to express ourselves to other humans.

I still have a sense of purpose, and it's pretty much to take care of myself so that I will be capable of taking care of others. You know the thing they tell you on the airplane: put your oxygen mask on before assisting others? That sums it up pretty well.

p.s. The French Fry should never be a stand in for something else. The French Fry should be loved and appreciated for the beautiful thing that it is.

Dust up in the Dust Bowl

(I should have busted this one out for Darwin's birthday, but, well, I didn't. Here it is now, from 2007.)

According to an article on yahoo.com, God and Darwin are to “clash again in Kansas.” (February 13, 2007. “God, Darwin Clash Again in Kansas.”)

I wonder how that would go.

Because, first of all, Darwin was real, and secondly, Darwin is dead.

Perhaps the scientific theory of evolution is coming into conflict with the religious belief in creation by a supernatural god, but God and Darwin are not having some sort of brawl in the midlands.

I would imagine that in a contest between God and Darwin, some ground rules would have to be laid:

1. God is not allowed to smite.
2. The duel will be limited to the exchange of reasoned, logical arguments based on the evidence.
3. God must limit itself to one manifestation: Yahweh, Allah, Thor, and Zeus are not allowed to tag-team the scientist.
4. God is not allowed to say “because I said so” (See number 2).
5. Darwin is not allowed to roll his eyes and scoff.
6. Darwin will refrain from thwacking God on the forehead and reminding him that “god” itself is a creature of evolution, developed by the human mind over tens of thousands of years.

Religious fundamentalists (antiscientifics?) say that “evolution cannot be proven,” and that it is “not in accordance with Biblical teachings regarding the origins of life.” Well now, I would guess that they would get little to no argument on the second assertion. In fact, I quite agree with them. It appears we have some common ground! As far as the first assertion goes, making a claim of improvability for evolution does not make it improvable, and are they offering up their whole “done in seven days” idea to the rigors of “proof?” Because “The Bible says so, and we’re here, aren’t we?” is not proof.

(I can almost picture the annual meeting of these people: antiscientifics sitting around in little hysterical huddles, talking about the load of crap that is global warming, the clever diversion of evolution, and the affront to god and nature that is stem cell research, while they feed mountains of evidence to little campfires, roasting marshmallows, all the while also lamenting the decline of modern American civilization.)

But I digress.

People who accept a book like the Bible as concrete truth purely on its own merits because “God said it” and do not subject their beliefs to rigorous standards do not seem to have the right to request “proof” of anything.

America's Next Top Genius Ape

Wednesday night was Television Night. Dorkchic got me into America's Next Top Model because she might be evil, and the new cycle started that night. Lest my IQ drop too far, we planned to watch Nova directly afterwards. Little did I know how comparable these two shows would be.

On the Model show, there was pushing and screaming and crying; women were being held off from having actual physical fights within the first few hours of meeting each other. We were witness to pettiness, arrogance, stupidity, greed, immaturity, and instability all rolled up into 35 women aged 18-24. It makes me proud of my gender.

On Nova, it was "Ape Genius," where there was teamwork, culture, love, grief, learning, and snacking. Researchers are learning about the capabilities of the ape brain and finding that it far surpasses what we had initially thought. Observation of chimpanzees over the decades has even forced us to reevaluate our definition of "human." It was an excellent program that made me look at my nearest relatives in the animal kingdom in a new way.

In the Nova program, they showed studies that were done first with human children and then with chimps. In one study, they had to watch the researcher go through a series of tasks to get to the gummi bear. Both chimp and kid were able to get the treat. I wonder if the models would have been able to do it. The treat would probably have to be something other than a gummi bear though. Maybe a cigarette or a packet of Sweet-n-Low.

Another study dealt with delayed gratification. The kids were shown two plates. One had a single gummi bear on it, and the other had five. They were told that if they waited until the researcher came back, they could have five gummi bears, but if they wanted the single gummi bear right away, they could ring the bell and eat it. One kid ate the gummi bear before the researcher was even out of the room and then rang the bell. This study was originally done with cookies by sociologist Walter Mischel. I have not seen the tapes, but I guess that one little boy just sat there in front of the single cookie and wept. But he waited.

I could not picture the models participating in this experiment because I doubted that they would understand the instructions, and I could not imagine that they would be tempted by sweets in any case. I do think, however, that perhaps the 14 models remaining from ANTM should be put through some of the chimp experiments in which they use teamwork to procure food, pass on survival skills though copying and observation, and assist humans in accomplishing tasks.

In exchange, Miss J can teach the chimps to walk on heels, work their runway walks, and style their own photoshoots. If the models can understand the pointing experiment, where they must choose the cup that is pointed to in order to get the prize (again, an inappropriate snack), demonstrating the ability to share new discoveries, then they will be ahead of the young bonobo who found the experiment deathly boring and rolled around, exasperated, knocking over cups and not cooperating at all.

I can picture quite a few of the models reacting in the same manner as the bonobo to a number of different situations; time will tell.

But I don't think that ANTM was quite what Darwin had in mind.